Boomand$Bust$ intheBarnett$ Shale$ - Lehigh...
23
Boom and Bust in the Barnett Shale By Katie Howley 12/6/2012
Transcript of Boomand$Bust$ intheBarnett$ Shale$ - Lehigh...
Boom and Bust in the Barnett Shale By Katie Howley
12/6/2012
1
Introduction
Industries that capitalize on non-renewable resources, like hydraulic fracturing, typically
go through a boom and bust cycle. This cycle is characterized by fluctuating phases of economic
growth and reduction. Booming economies experience increases in gross domestic product and
production. Economies during bust periods typically suffer from increased unemployment and
drops in production. Following this cycle is an important indicator for the long-term
sustainability of the fracking industry. This boom and bust cycle in the Barnett Shale is important
to the fracking situation because it is serves as a case study for the industry to learn from. The
Barnett Shale is one of the largest shale formations in the United States, located in Texas, that is
cultivated for the use of fracking. The industry can identify problems in the economic structure
of fracking by looking at this specific example. The fracking industry can use this data to
understand why fracking is profitable in the first place and what factors perpetuate the demise of
an area with gas exploration. This topic is important for the fracking controversy because it is
hard evidence for both sides of the argument. The Boom and Bust in the Barnett Shale
exemplifies positive and negative effects of fracking on residents and the local economy.
Citizens should be interested in the boom and bust of the Barnett Shale so that they can make an
educated decision on whether or not to support fracking and then subsequently take action on
that decision. The personal experiences and economic evidence associated with this specific
shale should help form informed opinions. An educated public can take action toward whichever
side they choose.
2
Topic Discussion
The Barnett Shale is a natural gas formation that covers more than 5,000 square miles of
North Texas [See figure 1]. Its core production areas are in Denton, Johnsons, Tarrant and Wise
counties (“A Decade of Drilling,” 2011). It is one of the most prolific natural gas reservoirs
(Wynveen, 2011). The geologic formation lies 6,500 to 8,500 feet beneath the surface of the
earth. At its thickest, the shale runs 1,000 feet deep, but can be as shallow as 30-50 feet thick in
other areas. Since the advent of conventional gas drilling, drillers have been extracting gas from
the Barnett Shale using hydraulic fracturing. However, drilling in the Barnett Shale has started to
boom in the past decade. This piece will focus on the effects of gas development in the Fort
Worth and Wise County areas. This report analyzes the economics and overall effects of the
fracking boom for the area surrounding the Barnett Shale. Since fracking is a relatively new
technology, bust towns are difficult to come by this early in the process. Therefore, possible bust
symptoms in the Barnett Shale will be compared with those of the actual bust of the auto
industry in Detroit, Michigan. By observing the economic shortcomings of the auto industry
bust, it is easier to point out which aspects of fracking could be responsible for a possible bust of
the Barnett Shale boomtowns.
Energy companies were flooding Fort Worth, Texas, in early 2008 to take advantage of
the promising wealth in the Barnett Shale. Oil and gas companies were competing for drilling
rights, some even offering bonuses of $27,500 per acre for signing a lease (Urbina, 2011). The
media in Fort Worth were being used to push residents to sign leases, promising attractive
benefits that many of the lower class citizens could not resist. Billboards lining the highway read,
“If you don’t have a gas lease, get one!” (Urbina, 2011, para. 20). One of the most powerful
shale gas companies, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, even used a celebrity pitchman to
3
promote fracking in the area. One television advertisement for Chesapeake Energy had the actor
Tommy Lee Jones talk about the benefits that drilling would bring to the residents. Jones said in
the ad, “The extremely long-term benefits include new jobs and capital investment and royalties
and revenues that pay for public roads, schools and parks” (Urbina, 2011, para. 21). Energy
companies were targeting Fort Worth residents with positive fracking advertisements, hoping
this would ensure compliance from land owners. Oil and gas companies gave the impression that
they had found a method of making shale gas drilling uniform by redefining the “manufacturing
model” that allows energy companies to build wells anywhere on the promising parts of the shale
(Urbina, 2011). Drilling permits had a sharp increase in 2008 with the number of new wells
permitted reaching an all-time high of more than 4,000, compared to 3,600 in 2007 and 2,500 in
2006 (“A Decade of Drilling,” 2011) [See figure 2].
In 2011, the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce commissioned The Perryman Group, an
economic and financial analysis firm, to conduct an assessment of how the Barnett Shale activity
has fiscally stimulated businesses throughout the area. For the Barnett Shale the three main
sources of economic stimulus are the exploration and drilling activity, pipeline investments, and
finally royalties and lease bonuses. Overall, investment in production activity and spending on
exploration has generated thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in investment. Local
and state governments have also benefited from property taxes, severance tax, boost in retail
sales and real estate development, permits and fees – to name a few stimulus sources (“A Decade
of Drilling,” 2011). Royalties and bonuses paid by natural gas operators have been given to
individual land owners, improving residents overall quality of life.
The Perryman Group found that overall shale production is an important indicator for the
collateral economic success of the shale towns. Despite the economic downturn in 2010, the
4
production from the Barnett Shale remained stable, proving the sheer economic stability of the
Barnett Shale production. Production from the shale rose from 1.7 trillion cubic feet in 2009 to
1.8 trillion in 2010 (“A Decade of Drilling,” 2011) [See figure 3]. In 2011, shale activity
contributed to 100,000 jobs in the Barnett Shale region and almost 120,000 for Texas as a whole.
This was a decline from the 2008 peak of 110,000 but a rise from 90,000 jobs in the 2009
economic recession (“A Decade of Drilling,” 2011) [See figure 4]. In 2010, municipalities
received about $31 million in royalties, $30 million in bonuses, and $25 million in tax revenues
from natural gas and mineral rights (“A Decade of Drilling,” 2011). This upward trend coincides
with the increase in average median family income for Fort Worth, which rose from $60,000 in
2007 to $70,000 in 2012 (“Economic Trends,” 2012) [See figure 5].
Independent school districts, schools separate from any municipality, county, or state, in
the Barnett Shale, have received millions of dollars from gas exploration. The school districts
received approximately $2.7 million in royalty payments, $2.5 million in bonuses, and $45.8
million in tax revenue from natural gas and mineral rights in 2010. (“A Decade of Drilling,”
2011). Energy companies even donated computers to the East Fort Worth Montessori Academy
in 2009. Funds established by various energy corporations, like Chesapeake Energy, will
provide scholarships for high school graduates for at least a decade. For example, in 2011, eight
Fort Worth high school graduates received $56,000 each toward college education – a combined
total of $224,000 (“Fort Worth ISD Graduates,” 2011).
The cumulative economic benefits from Barnett Shale activity has yielded $65.4 billion
in output (gross product) and 596,648 person-years of employment in the region, with even
larger gains for the state as a whole. The Perryman Group also estimated that as of 2011 the
gross product in the shale region was 9.4% higher than it would be without the Barnett Shale (“A
5
Decade of Drilling,” 2011) [See figure 6]. Personal income was also projected as 8.5% higher
and wage and salary employment was 8.7% higher than without shale activity [See figure 7].
A 2011 study was conducted to obtain feedback from residents about their opinions of the
Barnett Shale development. The study was titled “A Thematic Analysis of Local Respondents'
Perceptions of Barnett Shale Energy Development” and published to the Journal of Rural Social
Sciences. Questionnaires were mailed to 1,533 randomly selected households in Wise and
Johnson counties. The survey had 42 questions. The first common theme among respondents was
a concurrence that there had not been an economic bust stage in the development of the Barnett
Shale. Respondents collectively agreed that there had been an overall increase in economic
benefits because of the shale development. One respondent even called the collateral benefits
from the development as “our lifeblood” (Wynveen, 2011). Respondents who sold leases said
that they were happy about leasing their mineral rights, explaining how “proceeds from gas wells
are paying my property taxes – residents need it [natural gas development]!” (Wynveen, 2011, p.
17). There were no negative economic consequences discussed. Long-term economic impacts
have therefore been sustained in both counties thus far.
However, this economic prosperity came at a cost. Citizens were concerned that gas well
producers’ trucks are destroying roads that were not originally intended for such high traffic.
Respondents complained that the local towns are not able to keep up with the damage that is
being done. Traffic and congestion is an additional problem. Citizens see the increased traffic as
dangerous, and it has resulted in more traffic accidents and fatalities. One respondent commented
on this problem, stating that “my wife and I have both been run off the road by these drivers.
Many of my friends and family members have also had close calls with these trucks” (Wynveen,
6
2011, p. 19). One resident also commented that “you have to drive off the road to let oil field
trucks go by!!!”(Wynveen, 2011, p. 20).
Several residents also concluded that corporations were not acting responsibly, claiming
that they are greedy, abuse the landowners, and lack concern for landowners who are unsatisfied.
One respondent complained about how “one energy company drilled a gas well 250 feet from
two water wells. We tried to get them to move further again. No luck. Now we are having
trouble with both water wells. Both are pumping sand. We had to replace the pump motor in one.
The energy company would not accept responsibility” (Wynveen, 2011, p. 21). Another citizen
had similar feelings, saying “I don’t feel like anyone is concerned about me or my property.” An
additional respondent added that they have friends who “have signed agreements for
drilling…however they cannot get answers as to when drilling will start on their property”
(Wynveen, 2011, p. 21).
Since fracking is a relatively new technology, most boom towns have yet to enter a bust
phase. However, it is helpful to look at other industries to see how an economic bust has affected
the town’s economy, population, infrastructure and other key factors that once made the town
booming. Once the symptoms of a bust are identified, it will be easier to see what aspects of the
Barnett Shale boom could lead to a possible bust. Detroit, Michigan, is an example of an
automotive industry bust. In 1914, Detroit was making half of the cars in the United States
(Lepeska, 2012). The economy continued to thrive and 14 years later it was the fourth largest
city in the U.S. with a population of 1.6 million along with a new infrastructure that made the
area even more attractive. The physical location of the city also gave the area access to the key
ingredients for industrial growth. It was near coal, iron, and copper mining industry hubs, which
could be accessed by land and water, and it was close to the nation’s best production centers.
7
The automotive industry was even able to rebound after the great depression in the 1930s
by channeling its efforts toward World War II. Industry giants quickly retrofitted plants to build
tanks, planes and other parts and vehicles needed for the war. The Chrysler Detroit Tank Plant
single-handedly produced 22,000 tanks during the Second World War (Peterson, 2009). After the
war the automobile manufacturers took off again, selling a record number of cars and thus
stimulating the local economy. In 1950, approximately 200,000 people were employed by the car
manufacturing industry in Detroit which had an overall population of 1.85 million people
(Maynard, 2011).
Within two years of the 1973 oil embargo, which forced the development of more energy
efficient engines, the U.S. auto production fell nearly 30 percent. A key component of the demise
of the Detroit boomtown was the decentralization of the industry (Sugrue). New plants were built
closer to the people— in small towns and suburbia. Human workers were also being replaced by
labor-saving technology which had overwhelming effects on the job market. By the 1970s,
international automotive competition had wiped out any glimmer of hope. Detroit has lost a
quarter of its population in the last ten years and an overall 60% population loss since 1950.
Even when a city and an industry are at their most powerful, their decline is no less plausible.
Industries have to be aware of possible threats to the sustainability of their line of work.
The Barnett Shale has shown early signs of future problems for fracking profitability.
Deborah Rogers, a member of the advisory committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
has been studying shale companies’ data. Rogers said in a 2009 email: “These wells are
depleting so quickly that the operators are in an expensive game of ‘catch-up’” (Urbina, 2011,
para. 17). She further explained that “this could have profound consequences for our local
economy.” Residents in the Fort Worth area would be devastated if the economic flow from
8
shale use came to a halt. Some Fort Worth citizens have already felt the impact of energy
companies’ losses during the 2008 recession.
The economic crisis led energy companies to rescind expensive lease offers, reduce
loyalty checks and cut down tax receipts. An example of direct damage in Fort Worth is the
dozens of black churches with land leases on which no royalties had been made that will no
longer be eligible for tax exemption. “Ruinous, that’s how I’d describe it,” said Rev. Kyev
Tatum, of Fort Worth. Some wells in the Barnett Shale have even been falling below
expectations. “Our engineers here project these wells out to 20-30 years of production and in my
mind that has yet to be proven as viable,” a Chesapeake Energy geologist wrote in an e-mail to a
federal energy analyst. The geologist continued saying, “In fact I’m quite skeptical of it myself
when you see the percent decline in the first year of production.” A geologist from a large
producer of natural gas in the Barnett Shale, ConocoPhillips, went as far as saying in an e-mail to
a colleague that shale gas might inevitably be “the world’s largest uneconomic field” (Urbina,
2011, para. 34).
These ‘surprise’ failures can also be partially explained by the uncertainty of gas well
productivity. Gas companies have run into trouble because they cannot predict the life of a gas
well. Shale gas wells can consistently produce between a range of 25 to 65 years. “These
companies have been making such predictions based on limited data and a certain amount of
guesswork, since shale drilling is a relatively new practice,” according to New York Times
reporter, Ian Urbina (2011, para. 45). If energy companies are unsure about the productivity of
wells then it puts the people living in the Barnett Shale region at risk. Since the practice is new it
would be wise for companies to play it safe, but competitive pressures have made a
precautionary attitude impossible.
9
Energy companies are taking the risk of developing without fully understanding the long-
term sustainability of the wells or the economic damage fracking may eventually cause in these
small towns. Not enough time has elapsed to fully see the results. Residents will take the brunt of
any shale failures. Just like Detroit, if they lose the big industry they may not have much to fall
back on. If other industries in the Barnett Shale area are not profitable enough to save towns
from an economic downturn, there is not much hope for the area’s fiscal survival. The decrease
in population size was Detroit's most severe loss. If the population size were to diminish, the
Barnett Shale area would lose its flow of activity for business, the kiss of death. In Detroit, they
were blindsided by the unforeseen technological advances – the pressure for energy efficient
engines and machines that replaced factory workers. Detroit factories were not able to act
quickly enough to keep up with these advancements. As fracking is a new technology, it too will
inevitably be prone to new developments to the process. The Barnett Shale energy companies
ought to take this into consideration when planning long-term strategies for gas wells and their
maintenance. Should more efficient procedures be developed, they must be quick to act to
compete with other advancing shale areas. Detroit also suffered from auto companies spreading
plants to other areas, thereby decentralizing production in Detroit. This is an action that was
taken without long-term planning.
The Barnett Shale energy companies need to consider all possibilities when taking on any
major changes to the economic structure of fracking. The fast-paced business decisions have to
be supplemented with consideration of the boomtown’s sustainability needs. However, this type
of attention from businesses is unrealistic. Businesses are there to make money and rarely
consider the needs of the towns they occupy once the shale is no longer profitable. Oil and gas
companies are notorious for pumping resources dry and moving on – not caring much about the
10
communities left behind. Detroit was brought down by international competition. Businesses left
to find areas with more profitable prospects. This type of situation could happen to the Barnett
Shale area. One of the biggest companies in the Barnett Shale is Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, which has wells in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Chesapeake could easily flee the
Barnett Shale the second it becomes uneconomical. Barnett Shale residents also need to be aware
of how other shale areas are faring and any advances that have been made. This ties back to
keeping up with the technological pace which is the most common root of competitive
advantages for corporations. To help prevent bust towns, Barnett Shale corporations need to pay
attention to how fracking technology will advance and what actions to should be taken to
incorporate such advancements into their current business model.
What is important to take away from this analysis is that the bust phase is difficult to
prevent after a prolific boom. The example of Detroit and the auto industry shows that although
the boom was significant, it did not protect the area from a bust. What the Barnett Shale leaders
and residents should realize is the importance of balance. Fracking is extremely lucrative.
However, other industries should be considered before fracking becomes profitless. After all, the
shale is a non-renewable resource – there will be a time when fracking will no longer continue.
The Barnett Shale area does not have to end up like Detroit did when auto companies moved
elsewhere. A sustainable economy can be achieved if other industries are attracted to the area.
11
Source: Texas Railroad Commission
Figure 2. Barnett Shale – Drilling Permits 1993-2010
Figure 1. Counties Affected by Barnett Shale
Source: Texas Railroad Commission
12
Figure 3. Barnett Shale Production (BCF) 1993-2010
Figure 4. The Impact of Exploration, Drilling, and Operations in the Barnett Shale on Employment
Source: A Decade of Drilling, 2011. The Perryman Group
Source: Texas Railroad Commission
13
Figure 5. Median Family Income, 1997-2012
Figure 6. Historical and Projected Real Gross Product for the Barnett Shale Region
Source: A Decade of Drilling, 2011. The Perryman Group
Source: Economic Trends, 2012. Fort Worth Texas
14
Profiles of Key Individuals and Groups
1. FWCanDo! (Fort Worth Citizens Against Neighborhood Drilling Ordinance)
¶ In September 2005 a small group of concerned citizens came together in response
to gas drilling and other related activities that were too close to neighborhoods
and schools.
¶ This group is completely against fracking and any activities related to it because it
threatens people, property and wildlife.
¶ There is a wide variety of resources on their website, which encourages citizens to
take action against the local government and the industry. The website has photo
galleries, facts, media reports, protest events, maps, environmental impacts and a
Source: A Decade of Drilling, 2011. The Perryman Group
Figure 7. Historical and Projected Wage and Salary Employment for the Barnett Shale Region
15
wide variety of links that allow people to learn about all the impacts fracking has
had on the city of Fort Worth.
¶ The group also has a blog that writes about the most recent breakthroughs the
group has had or any updates on the Barnett Shale and affected people.
¶ This is important for this topic because it reveals how citizens are affected from
all angles in the fracking boom.
¶ You may contact the group through email at: [email protected]
¶ Link: http://www.fwcando.org/home
2. TLMA.org (Texas Land & Mineral Owners Association)
¶ This group was founded in 1999 with the goal of maintaining and strengthening
property rights for all Texas residents and royalty owners. They also want to
protect the land and water resources from fracking activity.
¶ This group has had direct effects on Texas legislation that protects the group’s
goals through various forms of lobbying.
¶ This is important for the boom and bust topic because the group tries to protect
citizens who are involved with land leases – a feature of a fracking boom.
¶ You may contact the group via:
§ Phone: 512-479-5000
§ Email: [email protected]
¶ Link: http://www.tlma.org/
3. North Central Texas Communities Alliance (NCTCA)
¶ This is a broad-based coalition that works on local, state, and national levels for
positive solutions to problems related to natural gas drilling.
16
¶ The coalition is comprised of individuals, organizations, and communities
throughout the Barnett Shale.
¶ Their goal is to communicate, educate and mobilize citizens to action in North
Texas to protect health, safety, environment and the overall quality of life.
¶ This is important for this topic because it reveals how citizens are affected from
all angles in the fracking boom.
¶ You may contact the group through their mailing address:
§ NCTCA
2320 Oakland Blvd. Suite 5
Fort Worth, TX. 76103
¶ Link: http://www.nctca.net/home.html
4. Texas Vox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas
¶ This organization has progressive advocates that research and recommend policy
that relates to promoting alternative energy resources in order to protect the
citizens in Texas.
¶ This grassroots group is against fracking and has passed legislation that protects
citizens from the dangers.
¶ They do not accept funds from corporations or government agencies so that the
organization remains independent. This way they continue to reveal facts about
industry and promote legislation that supports their viewpoints.
¶ This is important for the boom and bust topic because it relates to citizens directly
affected by the fracking boom.
¶ Contact:
17
§ Public Citizen-Texas
1303 San Antonio St
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 477-1155
Fax: (512) 479-8302
¶ Link: http://texasvox.org/
Web Resources for Additional Information 1. Barnett Shale Energy Education Council
a. A great website for basic information about the Barnett Shale and all of the
components involved in fracking.
b. There is in-depth information on safety, leasing, natural gas vehicles, pipelines,
legislation, air and water quality and other topics that all have outside links and
news articles for further information.
c. The website is organized, easy to use and provides lots of graphics.
d. This is an energy website it promotes fracking but it is still useful for basic
information about the shale and what is involved.
e. Link: http://www.bseec.org/
2. Railroad Commission of Texas Barnett Shale Information
a. This source has balanced information about the effects of drilling in the Barnett
Shale. There is a wide variety of topics covered in detail including but not limited
to:
i. Information, maps and pricing of licenses and permits in the shale.
18
ii. data from drilling, production, wells, natural gas services, open records
and many other useful information from the years of drilling.
iii. a detailed FAQ page about who has been affected by fracking in the
Barnett Shale.
b. This website has so much information that it may be overwhelming but the
information is organized very well. There are not many graphics because the site
mainly deals with data and analysis of the data.
c. Visitors also have access to useful links for more information.
d. Link: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/barnettshale/index.php
3. Oilshalegas.com/barnettshale
a. This website is not as organized but provides valuable economic information
about the companies involved in the Barnett Shale.
b. Each energy company is evaluated on their production, success rate, royalties,
profit and other important economic statistics.
c. There is no bias; it is based upon facts.
d. There are not that many graphics but the links give more information about each
energy company.
e. Link: http://oilshalegas.com/barnettshale.html
4. The Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce
a. This website provides information on the entire economics of the Fort Worth area.
The site offers public information about how citizens’ quality of life, education,
transportation, workforce, employment, wages have fluctuated over the years.
19
b. The site is organized but provides other information that is not related to fracking
which makes the site not as easy to use. However, there are plenty of graphics.
c. Since facts and statistics are mostly presented there is not much of a bias. But
since the chamber of commerce is there to promote business, bias may occur in
some of the information.
d. Link: http://www.fortworthchamber.com/
5. Southwest Fort Worth Alliance (SFWA)
a. A grassroots organization that works to protect the rights, quality or life and
negotiates mineral rights and royalty offers to ensure it is fair for the citizens in
the Barnett Shale area.
b. This group consists of twenty-eight neighborhoods who belong and are protected
under the alliance.
c. The SFWA has attorneys that represent and fight for the rights of the citizens in
the areas under the alliance. They have had many successful cases.
d. This is biased against fracking but provides great anecdotes and stories about
citizens affected by fracking.
e. The website is simple and straightforward. There are many links but not many
graphics.
f. Link: http://www.sfwalliance.org/
6. Star-Telegram Blog
a. This blog has the most information out of any of the sources listed. Users can find
information about almost any aspect of fracking in the Barnett Shale. The
immense amount of information provides a balanced viewpoint.
20
b. It is sponsored by the Star-Telegram newspaper of Fort-Worth, Texas.
c. Depending on the story there can be many graphics and outside links. The site is
easy to use because of the organized index of topics on the side of the page.
d. Link: http://startelegram.typepad.com/barnett_shale/
For More Information 1. http://cubstexas.org/donate.html
2. http://info.drillinginfo.com/urb/barnett/
3. http://www.texassharon.com/
4. http://www.nctcog.org/trans/air/barnettshale.asp
5. http://citizensshaleadvisors.com/about_us.php
6. http://geology.com/research/barnett-shale-gas.shtml
Works Cited
A Decade of Drilling. (2011, August). The Perryman Group. Retrieved from
http://barnettprogress.com/media/BarnettShaleStudy11.pdf
Economic Trends. (2012, June). Fort Worth Texas. Retrieved from
http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Planning_and_Desi
gn/2012CompPlan/02EconomicTrends_2012%20Draft.pdf
Fort Worth ISD Graduates to Receive up to $224,000 Toward College From Chesapeake
Scholarship. (2011, June 17). AskChesapeake. Retrieved from
http://www.askchesapeake.com/Barnett-Shale/Articles/Pages/article.aspx?Filter1Field=
ID&Filter1Value=53
21
Lepeska, D. (2012, March 12). The Historical Roots of Detroit’s Ruin. The Atlantic Cities.
Retrieved from
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/historical-roots-detroits-
ruin/1461/
Maynard, M. (2011, March 23). Detroit: A Boom Town Goes Bust. Changing Gears. Retrieved
from http://www.changinggears.info/2011/03/23/detroit-a-boom-town-goes-bust/
Peterson, L. (2009, May 19). The Detroit Syndrome of Economic Failure. Seeking Alpha.
Retrieved from
http://seekingalpha.com/article/138341-the-detroit-syndrome-of-economic-failure
Sugrue, T. Motor City: The Story of Detroit. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.
Retrieved from
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/politics-reform/essays/motor-city-story-
Detroit
Texas Railroad Commission. Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/barnettshale/index.php
Urbina, I. (2011, June 25). Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush. The New York
Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Wynveen, B.J. (2011). A Thematic Analysis of Local Respondents’ Perceptions of Barnett Shale
Energy Development. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 26.1. Auburn University.
Retrieved from
22
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/srsa/pages/Articles/JRSS%202011%2026%201%208
-31.pdf
